JJB gave grandsons ipod away.

DKLS

Physio88 wrote: »

Who gives you a whack if you lose something now? haha:rotfl:

Now thats an easy question............The Wife

Nothing much changes.

Physio88

OlliesDad wrote: »

Unless the son gave the Ipod to the member of staff and asked them to look after it, they did not intend to take possession of the item.

The claim is against the women who took the item. It is likely that they could trace the lady through the credit card details, but this is something the police would have to do (thankfully card providers do not give address details to a shop who asks for it).

Hopefully this is a learning experience for the son to look after it their possessions in future, i know i did when leaving my minidisc player on an aeroplane when i was 10.

Thats interesting, so even if the JJB staff member picked it up off the bench before giving it to the woman?

I work as a lifeguard and often have customers asking to look after jewellery and other items they have forgot to put in a locker. We are not allowed to look after property. We do allow customers to place their property on the desk but they must do so themselves and agree and understand that we will not be liable for damage/missing property. However, it is the customers who put it their, we never take physically take possession of the property.

INT1

Lesson learned I think, very unlucky really

In my view it is theft and then this should of happened:

Police get involved by viewing the CCTV
Police contact merchants (JJB's) acquiring bank to trace card number to that customer
Police submit DPA to bank/card company in question to get demographic details
Police pay a visit to cardholders house
iPod is given back to rightful owner and slap on wrist to woman who stole
Or woman is prosecuted for theft

Pretty easy case really but unfortuntely the police have got better things to do most likely and catching speeding motorists!

Freddie_Snowbits

Is in essence the same as the box that I use for children’s work. If they put their items in there, it is not in my possession or my safe keeping. The same as walking up to a stranger and asking them to look after your wallet in the street.

The essence here is the JJB are not responsible for the customer’s own property and I think this is down in law some where and why we have signs in car parks absolving the owner of the land responsibility for your car. In the same way, JJB are not responsible for your property, but when it came to their attention, did their best to return it to the rightful owner. The person who gained the item is the offender in this case. But then, all she did was take a chance when an opportunity was given, their was really no initial attempt by her to do this at all.

As for the police, one has to consider the time and energy required to gather evidence and if there is enough case for a prosecution. One would doubt that this would occur. Same as the Easter egg I referenced, via PTs, in this post.

In the long run, I am minded by my first boss when entering the shop floor in 1978, ‘Do not turn up in a new car or motor bike, it will make us think we are paying you too much’ In other words, be aware of your surroundings and look after things. I remember losing my racing bike as a kid. My old fellows response, next time lock it!

Still, V&A items do attract attention to some people and in the end, they do have a value. Even if the item has winged its way across some internetosphre into non existence by now, next time, better care would prevent the loss by the negligent person (Owner). The same way most get mugged because they have something to offer the thief, rather than the more obscure person who floats on down.

As for the morels of Finders Keepers, every item does have an intrinsic value, the more expensive ones attracting a set price, that is why I always park next to the flash car, knowing it will get a ticket or scratch before mine.

[Deleted User]

aveylee wrote: »

What I would argue is that JJB by taking control of the goods misappropriated them from the owner.

But this is a nonsense argument! Otherwise anyone who was handed an item of lost property would be commiting theft (which is clearly not the case).

The Saturday staff just accepted the iPod/iPhone/whatever it is without thinking, that is all.

Why on earth you are quoting a case which centres around the application of private international law and the reliance of foreign laws prevailing against recognised international law convention is beyond me...

Freddie_Snowbits

INT1 wrote: »

Police get involved by viewing the CCTV

As a tax payer, is this a good use of my money?

I do not think so

peachyprice

aveylee wrote: »

What I would argue is that JJB by taking control of the goods misappropriated them from the owner.
The tort is one of strict liability. What you would have to proove was that JJB took the goods, and then gave them away.

But they didn't.

Oh, wait a minute, perhaps JJB distracted they boy with pretty sparkly trainers thus making him walk out of the shop in a daze leaving his ipod behind. I bet that's what happened, in which case, sue JJB, it's all their fault.

adouglasmhor

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

As a tax payer, is this a good use of my money?

I do not think so

I think making thieves and rogues pay for their crimes is an outstanding use of taxpayers money. Just wish they would make sure they fine her more than the investigation costs.

INT1

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

As a tax payer, is this a good use of my money?

I do not think so

I pay tax as well, in fact I pay a lot of tax, however it is what they get paid to do. The thief took an iPod today, oppurtunist, she might of thought "That was easy" so whats the next thing she could steal...

Physio88

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

As a tax payer, is this a good use of my money?

I do not think so

It would involve 0.000001 pence* of your tax money...would you not give that for a young boy to get his ipod back?

Maybe we should only spend tax money on profitable ventures in the future, set up a dragon's den type procedure to invest it :j

*Stated amount may be wildly inaccurate but you get the point.